Acosta v. TForce Final Mile, LLC et al

Filing 56

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg DENYING 55 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,

Case No. 17-cv-06624-RS

Plaintiff,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
13

TFORCE FINAL MILE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

14
15
16

Defendant TForce Final Mile West, LLC challenges one portion of the assigned magistrate

17

judge’s “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of

18

Documents,” dated October 17, 2018. (Dkt. No. 51). Plaintiff in this action is the Secretary of the

19

Department of Labor. Defendants are TForce and On Courier 365, Inc. The complaint seeks to

20

impose liability on defendants for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to

21

drivers hired to deliver packages for the “Google Express” service.

22

The dispute is whether TForce must produce documents related to any drivers it may have

23

directly hired to deliver packages for Google Express, as opposed to only those drivers that were

24

hired by On Courier, which TForce contends it engaged as an “independent service provider.”

25

The challenged order requires TForce to produce responsive documents both as to drivers hired

26

through On Courier and as to any drivers TForce may have directly hired for the Google Express

27

service.

28

The parties agree, and the magistrate judge’s order acknowledges, that the scope of

1

discovery is controlled by the allegations of the complaint. TForce insists the complaint only

2

alleges FLSA violations with respect to drivers hired under its relationship with On Courier, and

3

that the magistrate judge therefore erred in ordering production of documents related to any

4

drivers it may have directly hired to do Google Express deliveries. TForce is not wrong that the

5

primary focus of the complaint is on drivers as to whom TForce and On Courier are alleged to

6

have been joint employers. The language of the complaint, however, is broad enough also to

7

encompass claims arising from TForce’s direct hire of drivers for Google Express deliveries.

8

If plaintiff were seeking documents relating to drivers hired jointly by TForce and some
other “independent service provider,” TForce might have a strong argument that because the

10

complaint only mentions On Courier, it does not encompass claims relating to drivers hired

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

through such other entity, under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The

12

complaint, however, plainly alleges hiring by both TForce and On Courier, and the emphasis on

13

the scenario of drivers being hired by TForce through On Courier does not somehow exclude any

14

circumstances where TForce hired directly.

15

A district court may modify a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter only if

16

the order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P.

17

72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Because TForce has

18

shown no such error here, its objections to the order are overruled.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: November 8, 2018
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

CASE NO.

2

17-cv-06624-RS